Horizontal Restraint Claims Sample Clauses

Horizontal Restraint Claims. In its second amended complaint, PSKS alleged, for the first time, that ▇▇▇▇▇▇ had engaged in horizontal price fixing activities which were illegal per se. PSKS’s horizontal restraint claims for per se analysis were summarized as arguments relying on the theories which were called“dual distribution system”and“hub and spoke conspiracy”. Neither of them was accepted by the district court under the mandate rule, which prevented litigation of waived issues on remand because they had never been raised in the lower court. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision stating that the district court rightly dismissed the PSKS’s horizontal restraint claim as barred by the mandate rule. Emphasizing that the Supreme Court in ▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not specifically allow PSKS to re-plead allegations it had previously abandoned, the district court on remand rejected PSKS’s argument that the mandate rule did not apply in the case.225）Moreover, the district court analogized the case on remand to the district court decision on remand in Sylvania,226）in which the plaintiff was not allowed to plead horizontal allegations after the Supreme Court overruled per se illegality against vertical non-price restraints, and remanded the case to be tried under the rule of reason.
View SourceView Similar (2)
Horizontal Restraint Claims. Conclusions Mar. 2012 THE END OF THE LEEGIN SAGA AND THE BEGINNING OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE RULE OF REASON IN RPM CASES Since the groundbreaking decision of the Supreme Court in Leegin,１）Resale Price Maintenance “( RPM”) has been a controversial issue not only in courts but also in Congress. It is true that Leegin is marked an epoch in U.S. antitrust law when it overruled the longstanding per se rule against RPM established by Dr. Miles２）and instead declared the application of the rule of reason. However, although ▇▇▇▇▇▇ mentioned some factors which could lead RPM to illegality under the rule of reason, it is also true that ▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not answer‘how’and‘on what standard’the lower courts should decide in each RPM case. Explicitly, the Leegin Court stated that“[i]f the rule of reason were to apply to vertical price restraints, courts would have to be diligent in eliminating their anticompetitive uses from the market.”３） The court continued further“[a]s courts gain experience considering the effects of these restraints by applying the rule of reason over the course of decisions, they can establish the litigation structure to ensure the rule operates to eliminate anticompetitive restraints from the market and to provide more guidance to businesses.”４）To put it simply, the Leegin Court expected lower courts to devise workable standards for RPM through discussion in the courtroom. Following the remand decisions by the lower courts in 2009 and 2010, the lengthy antitrust litigation which had lasted since 2003 came to an end on February 22, 2011.５）In this paper, following the quick review of the Leegin decision (Chapter I), post-Leegin movement in executive, judicial and legislative branches of federal government was summarized (Chapter II), in addition to the analysis of the remand decisions of ▇▇▇▇▇▇ (Chapter III). A. Factual Background 6) B. Supreme Court Opinion７） Before deciding whether RPM agreement should continue to be treated as illegal per se, the Court examined the standard for testing whether a practice restrains trade in violation of Section 1 of the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Act. Although the Court acknowledged the doctrine of stare decisis, it did not blindly follow the per se rule but instead referred to a need to change the rule to meet the evolving and dynamic economic climate. Therefore, the Court identified the rule of reason as the accepted and prevailing standard for outlawing only unreasonable restraints with anticompetitive effect. On the other hand, the Court...
View Source

Related to Horizontal Restraint Claims

  • Governmental Restrictions If the Contractor believes that any governmental restrictions have been imposed that require alteration of the material, quality, workmanship or performance of the products offered under the Contract, the Contractor shall immediately notify the Customer in writing, indicating the specific restriction. The Customer reserves the right and the complete discretion to accept any such alteration or to cancel the Contract at no further expense to the Customer.

  • Attachment; Levy; Restraint on Business (a) (i) The service of process seeking to attach, by trustee or similar process, any funds of Borrower or of any entity under the control of Borrower (including a Subsidiary), or (ii) a notice of lien or levy is filed against any of Borrower’s assets by any Governmental Authority, and the same under subclauses (i) and (ii) hereof are not, within ten (10) days after the occurrence thereof, discharged or stayed (whether through the posting of a bond or otherwise); provided, however, no Credit Extensions shall be made during any ten (10) day cure period; or (i) any material portion of Borrower’s assets is attached, seized, levied on, or comes into possession of a trustee or receiver, or (ii) any court order enjoins, restrains, or prevents Borrower from conducting all or any material part of its business;

  • Reasonableness of Restrictive Covenants (a) Executive acknowledges that the covenants contained in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 are reasonable in the scope of the activities restricted, the geographic area covered by the restrictions, and the duration of the restrictions, and that such covenants are reasonably necessary to protect the Company's legitimate interests in its Confidential Information and in its relationships with its employees, customers and suppliers. Executive further acknowledges such covenants are essential elements of this Agreement and that, but for such covenants, the Company would not have entered into this Agreement. (b) The Company and Executive have each consulted with their respective legal counsel and have been advised concerning the reasonableness and propriety of such covenants. Executive acknowledges that his observance of the covenants contained in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 will not deprive him of the ability to earn a livelihood or to support his dependents.

  • Additional Restrictions In addition to any other restrictions on Transfer contained in this Agreement, in no event may any Transfer of a Partnership Interest by any Partner or any redemption pursuant to Section 8.6 be made without the express consent of the General Partner, in its sole and absolute discretion, (i) to any person or entity who lacks the legal right, power or capacity to own a Partnership Interest; (ii) in violation of applicable law; (iii) of any component portion of a Partnership Interest, such as the Capital Account, or rights to distributions, separate and apart from all other components of a Partnership Interest; (iv) if in the opinion of the General Partner based on the advice of legal counsel, if appropriate, such Transfer would cause a termination of the Partnership for federal or state income tax purposes (except as a result of a redemption of all Partnership Units held by all Limited Partners); (v) if in the opinion of the General Partner based on the advice of legal counsel, if appropriate, such Transfer would cause the Partnership to cease to be classified as a partnership for federal income tax purposes (except as a result of a redemption of all Partnership Units held by all Limited Partners); (vi) if such Transfer requires the registration of such Partnership Interest pursuant to any applicable federal or state securities laws; (vii) if such Transfer would cause the Partnership to become a “publicly traded partnership,” as such term is defined in Section 7704(b) of the Code (provided that this clause (vii) shall not be the basis for limiting or restricting in any manner the exercise of the Redemption Right under Section 8.6 unless, and only to the extent that, outside tax counsel advises the General Partner that, in the absence of such limitation or restriction, there is a significant risk that the Partnership will be treated as a “publicly traded partnership” and, by reason thereof, taxable as a corporation); (viii) if such Transfer would cause the General Partner to own 10% or more of the ownership interests of any tenant of a property held by the Partnership within the meaning of Section 856(d)(2)(B) of the Code; (ix) if such Transfer would result in the General Partner being “closely held” within the meaning of Section 856(h) of the Code; or (x) if in the opinion of the General Partner based on the advice of legal counsel, if appropriate, such Transfer would adversely affect the ability of the General Partner to continue to qualify as a REIT or subject the General Partner to any additional taxes under Sections 857 or 4981 of the Code.

  • Reasonable Restraint It is agreed by the parties hereto that the foregoing covenants in this Section 13 impose a reasonable restraint on the STOCKHOLDERS in light of the activities and business of URSI (including the subsidiaries thereof) on the date of the execution of this Agreement and the current plans of URSI; but it is also the intent of URSI and the STOCKHOLDERS that such covenants be construed and enforced in accordance with the changing activities and business of URSI (including the subsidiaries thereof) throughout the term of this covenant. It is further agreed by the parties hereto that, in the event that any STOCKHOLDER who has entered into an Employment Agreement shall thereafter cease to be employed thereunder, and such STOCKHOLDER shall enter into a business or pursue other activities not in competition with URSI and/or any subsidiary thereof, or similar activities or business in locations the operation of which, under such circumstances, does not violate clause (i) of this Section 13, and in any event such new business, activities or location are not in violation of this Section 13 or of such STOCKHOLDER's obligations under this Section 13, if any, such STOCKHOLDER shall not be chargeable with a violation of this Section 13 if URSI and/or any subsidiary thereof shall thereafter enter the same, similar or a competitive (i) business, (ii) course of activities or (iii) location, as applicable.